Activities of Sergey LAGODINSKY related to 2020/2018(INL)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (15)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas the rules enshrined in Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce have allowed for the development of the Internet and of digital services in the EU since two decades, and are key in protecting fundamental rights as well as in safeguarding an innovative business environment; considering that their revision should not be envisaged without scrutiny and utmost caution;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that wherever it is technically possible and reasonable, intermediaries should be required to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them, since anonymity effectively prevents unauthorised data disclosure and, identity theft and other forms of abuse of personal data collected online; notes that where the Directive on Consumer Rights requires commercial traders to communicate their identity, providers of major market places could be obliged to verify their identity, while in other cases the right to use digital services anonymously should be upheld;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that since the online activities of individuals allow for deep insights into their personality and make it possible to manipulate them, the collection and use of personal data concerning the use of digital services should be subjected to a specific privacy framework and limited to the extent necessary to provide and bill the use of the service; stresses that in the spirit of the jurisprudence on communications data, public authorities shall be given access to a user’s subscriber and metadata only to investigate suspects of serious crime with prior judicial authorisation;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Is concerned that single sign-on services can be used to track users across platforms; recommends that providers which support a single sign-on service with a dominant market share should be required to also support at least one open and federated authentication system based on a non-proprietary framework;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Reiterates that hosting service providers or other technical intermediaries shall not be obliged to generally monitor user-generated content;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that automated tools are unable to differentiate illegal content from content that is legal in a given context; highlights that human review of automated reports by service providers, their staff or their contractors does not solve this problem as private staff lack the independence, qualification and accountability of public authorities; stresses, therefore, that the Digital Services Act should explicitly prohibit any obligation on hosting service providers or other technical intermediaries to use automated tools for content moderation, and refrain from imposing notice-and-stay- down mechanisms; insists that content moderation procedures used by providers should not lead to any ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload-filtering of content;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that the fairness and compliance with fundamental rights standards of terms and conditions imposed by intermediaries to the users of their services shall be subject to judicial review;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Highlights that, in order to constructively build upon the rules of the e-Commerce Directive and to ensure legal certainty, applicable legislation shall exhaustively and explicitly spell out the duties of digital service providers rather than imposing a general duty of care; highlights that the legal regime for digital providers’ liability should not depend on uncertain notions such as the ‘active’ or ‘passive’ role of providers;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Proposes that the Digital Services Act should establish the details of notice- and-action procedures, that major commercial hosting service providers should provide a publicly and anonymously accessible mechanism for reporting allegedly illegal content published on their platform, that conditions need to be specified for a notice to be valid and followed up on, that notices should be examined by qualified staff, that the content provider shall be heard before disabling access to their content where this would not hinder or jeopardise an ongoing criminal investigation, and that adequate redress mechanisms, both via dispute settlement bodies and judicial authorities, should be made available, while applying reasonable time-frames; highlights that persons who systematically and repeatedly submit wrongful or abusive notices shall be sanctioned; underscores that smaller commercial and non-commercial providers shall not be subject to the same obligations;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Commission to consider obliging major hosting service providers to report serious crime to the competent law enforcement authority, upon obtaining actual knowledge of such a crime;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Underlines that illegal content should be removed where it is hosted, and that access providers shall not be required to block access to content;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Stresses that proportionate sanctions should be applied to violations of the law, which shall not encompass excluding individuals from digital services;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Highlights that in order to protect freedom of speech standards, to avoid conflicts of laws, to avert unjustified and ineffective geo-blocking and to aim for a harmonised digital single market, hosting service providers shall not be required to remove or disable access to information that is legal in their country of origin;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that in order to protect fundamental rights and to ensure legal certainty, the Digital Services Act shall not use the legally undefined concept of “harmful content”, but shall address the publication of content that is unlawful; Emphasises that the spread of false and racist information on social media should be contained by giving users control over content proposed to them; stresses that curating content on the basis of tracking user actions should require the user’s consent; proposes that users of social networks should have a right to see their timeline in chronological order; suggests that dominant platforms should provide users with an API to have content curated by software or services of their choice;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that, in order to overcome the lock-in effect of centralised networks and to ensure competition and consumer choice, users of dominant social media services and messaging services should be given a right to cross-platform interaction via open interfaces (interconnectivity); highlights that these users shall be able to interact with users of alternative services, and that the users of alternative services shall be allowed to interact with them.